IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt4mc291p2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Positive Utility of the Commute: Modeling Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute Amount

Author

Listed:
  • Redmond, Lothlorien S.
  • Mokhtarian, Patricia L.

Abstract

Two measures of commute time preferences – Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute amount (a variable indicating the desire to commute “much less” to “much more” than currently) – are modeled, using tobit and ordered probit, respectively. Ideal Commute Time was found to be positively related to Actual Commute Time and to a liking and utility for commuting, and negatively related to commute frequency and to a family/community-oriented lifestyle. Relative Desired Commute, on the other hand, was negatively related to amounts of actual commute and work-related travel, but positively related to travel liking and a measure of commute benefit. Overall, commute time is not unequivocally a source of disutility to be minimized but rather offers some benefits (such as a transition between home and work). Most people have a non-zero optimum commute time, which can be violated in either direction – i.e. it is possible (although comparatively rare, occurring for only 7% of the sample) to commute too little. On the other hand, a large proportion of people (52% of the sample) are commuting longer than they would like, and hence would presumably be receptive to reducing (although usually not eliminating) that commute.

Suggested Citation

  • Redmond, Lothlorien S. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2001. "The Positive Utility of the Commute: Modeling Ideal Commute Time and Relative Desired Commute Amount," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4mc291p2, University of California Transportation Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt4mc291p2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4mc291p2.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 1997. "Modeling the Desire to Telecommute: The Importance of Attitudinal Factors in Behavioral Models," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt29z267km, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan, 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9ns6v74t, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Veall, Michael R & Zimmermann, Klaus F, 1994. "Goodness of Fit Measures in the Tobit Model," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 56(4), pages 485-499, November.
    4. Salomon, Ilan & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 1997. "Coping with Congestion: Understanding the Gap Between Policy Assumptions and Behavior," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt4bh3b670, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. David Levinson & Ajay Kumar, 1994. "The Rational Locator: Why Travel Times Have Remained Stable," Working Papers 199402, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    6. Solomon, Ilan & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0f20d772, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Pazy, Asya & Salomon, Ilan & Pintzov, Tovi, 1996. "The impacts of women's careers on their commuting behavior: A case study of Israeli computer professionals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 269-286, July.
    8. Curry, Richard W., 2000. "Attitudes Toward Travel: The Relationships Among Perceived Mobility, Travel Liking, and Relative Desired Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2879h292, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    9. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 1997. "Modeling the desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 35-50, January.
    10. Varma, Krishna & Ho, Chaang-Iuan & Stanek, David & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 1998. "Duration and Frequency of Telecenter Use: Once a Telecommuter, Always a Telecommuter?," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt61t9j2vb, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    11. Redmond, Lothlorien, 2000. "Identifying and Analyzing Travel-Related Attitudinal, Personality, and Lifestyle Clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0317h7v4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    12. Wachs, Martin & Taylor, Brian D. & Levine, Ned & Ong, Paul, 1993. "The Changing Commute: A Case Study of the Jobs/Housing Relationship over Time," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7424635r, University of California Transportation Center.
    13. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan, 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9ns6v74t, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Redmond, Lothlorien, 2000. "Identifying and Analyzing Travel-Related Attitudinal, Personality, and Lifestyle Clusters in the San Francisco Bay Area," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0317h7v4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 2001. "How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 695-719, September.
    3. Ory, David T, 2007. "Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8mj659fp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan & S, Lothlorien, 2001. "Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely 'Derived'," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5bh2d8mh, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Ory, David T. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 97-123.
    6. Pawlak, Jacek & Polak, John W. & Sivakumar, Aruna, 2015. "Towards a microeconomic framework for modelling the joint choice of activity–travel behaviour and ICT use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 92-112.
    7. Ory, David Terrance, 2007. "Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7rb3x52m, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Collantes, Gustavo O. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2003. "Telecommuting and Residential Location: Relationships with Commute Distance Traveled for State of California Workers," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9pg4w5fs, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    9. Patrick A. Singleton & Kelly J. Clifton, 2021. "Towards measures of affective and eudaimonic subjective well-being in the travel domain," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 303-336, February.
    10. Collantes, Gustavo O. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2007. "Subjective assessments of personal mobility: What makes the difference between a little and a lot?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 181-192, May.
    11. Natalia Presman & Arie Arnon, 2006. "Commuting patterns in Israel 1991-2004," Bank of Israel Working Papers 2006.04, Bank of Israel.
    12. Natalia Presman & Arie Arnon, 2000. "Commuting Patterns in Israel," Regional and Urban Modeling 283600076, EcoMod.
    13. Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L, 2004. "Modeling the Individual Consideration of Travel-Related Strategy Bundles," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt3123v46c, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    14. Schwanen, Tim & Dijst, Martin, 2002. "Travel-time ratios for visits to the workplace: the relationship between commuting time and work duration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 573-592, August.
    15. Carreira, Rui & Patrício, Lia & Natal Jorge, Renato & Magee, Chris & Van Eikema Hommes, Qi, 2013. "Towards a holistic approach to the travel experience: A qualitative study of bus transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 233-243.
    16. Tae‐Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2020. "The relationship between overall happiness and perceived transportation services relative to other individual and environmental variables," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 712-733, June.
    17. Levine, Jonathan & Garb, Yaakov, 2002. "Congestion pricing's conditional promise: promotion of accessibility or mobility?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 179-188, July.
    18. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Bagley, Michael N., 2000. "Modeling employees' perceptions and proportional preferences of work locations: the regular workplace and telecommuting alternatives," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 223-242, May.
    19. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    20. Páez, Antonio & Scott, Darren M. & Morency, Catherine, 2012. "Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 141-153.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt4mc291p2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.